https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
As seen, the definition of second loved so
much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
solar system is measuring the length
of solar day. What is the result predicted
by the Einsteinian physics?
One prediction is - 99766. From the
postulates. The second prediction is -
86400. From definition.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.
Thank you for your attention, poor
relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.
[for two clocks at rest in relatively moving frames] Both clocks
show the same "time dilation", depending on which frame of reference
at relative rest is taken for calculations.
This alone shows the incoherence of this pseudo-science,
On 11/5/23 5:10 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
[for two clocks at rest in relatively moving frames] Both clocksYes. For once you have written something that is correct.
show the same "time dilation", depending on which frame of reference
at relative rest is taken for calculations.
This alone shows the incoherence of this pseudo-science,Nope! It merely shows that YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND SR.
Hint: the two frames are measuring DIFFERENT QUANTITIES.
There is no contradiction.
Tom Roberts
On 11/5/23 5:10 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
[for two clocks at rest in relatively moving frames] Both clocksYes. For once you have written something that is correct.
show the same "time dilation", depending on which frame of reference
at relative rest is taken for calculations.
This alone shows the incoherence of this pseudo-science,Nope! It merely shows that YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND SR.
Hint: the two frames are measuring DIFFERENT QUANTITIES.
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:08:24 AM UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
As seen, the definition of second loved so
much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
solar system is measuring the length
of solar day. What is the result predicted
by the Einsteinian physics?
One prediction is - 99766. From the
postulates. The second prediction is -
86400. From definition.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.
Thank you for your attention, poor
relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.
More ridiculous is the LACK OF explanation of symmetry in relativity, explained by pure breed relativists that maintain the Wiki page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
"Time dilation"
"Suppose there is a clock at rest in F. If a time interval is measured at the same point in that frame, so that Δx = 0, then the transformations
give this interval in F′ by Δt′ = γΔt.
Conversely, suppose there is a clock at rest in F′. If an interval is measured at the same point in that frame, so that Δx′ = 0, then the transformations
give this interval in F by Δt = γΔt′.
Either way, each observer measures the time interval between ticks of a moving clock to be longer by a factor γ than the time interval between ticks
of his own clock".
CONCLUSION: Both clocks show the same "time dilation", depending on which frame of reference at relative rest is taken for calculations.
This alone shows the incoherence of this pseudo-science, which has gained reputation as the stroke of a genius who destroyed Newton's physics.
Den 06.11.2023 00:10, skrev Richard Hertz:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:08:24 AM UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
As seen, the definition of second loved so
much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
solar system is measuring the length
of solar day. What is the result predicted
by the Einsteinian physics?
One prediction is - 99766. From the
postulates. The second prediction is -
86400. From definition.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.
Thank you for your attention, poor
relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.
More ridiculous is the LACK OF explanation of symmetry in relativity, explained by pure breed relativists that maintain the Wiki page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
"Time dilation"
"Suppose there is a clock at rest in F. If a time interval is measured at the same point in that frame, so that Δx = 0, then the transformations
give this interval in F′ by Δt′ = γΔt.
Conversely, suppose there is a clock at rest in F′. If an interval is measured at the same point in that frame, so that Δx′ = 0, then the transformations
give this interval in F by Δt = γΔt′.
Either way, each observer measures the time interval between ticks of a moving clock to be longer by a factor γ than the time interval between ticks
of his own clock".
CONCLUSION: Both clocks show the same "time dilation", depending on which frame of reference at relative rest is taken for calculations.Right!
This alone shows the incoherence of this pseudo-science, which has gained reputation as the stroke of a genius who destroyed Newton's physics.If there are inconsistencies, they should be here:
snip fresh imbecilities<
Lame justification of the paradox at this link, maintained by relativists:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
Den 06.11.2023 00:10, skrev Richard Hertz:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:08:24 AM UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
As seen, the definition of second loved so
much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
solar system is measuring the length
of solar day. What is the result predicted
by the Einsteinian physics?
One prediction is - 99766. From the
postulates. The second prediction is -
86400. From definition.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.
Thank you for your attention, poor
relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.
More ridiculous is the LACK OF explanation of symmetry in relativity, explained by pure breed relativists that maintain the Wiki page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
"Time dilation"
"Suppose there is a clock at rest in F. If a time interval is measured at the same point in that frame, so that Δx = 0, then the transformations
give this interval in F′ by Δt′ = γΔt.
Conversely, suppose there is a clock at rest in F′. If an interval is measured at the same point in that frame, so that Δx′ = 0, then the transformations
give this interval in F by Δt = γΔt′.
Either way, each observer measures the time interval between ticks of a moving clock to be longer by a factor γ than the time interval between ticks
of his own clock".
CONCLUSION: Both clocks show the same "time dilation", depending on which frame of reference at relative rest is taken for calculations.Right!
This alone shows the incoherence of this pseudo-science, which has gained reputation as the stroke of a genius who destroyed Newton's physics.If there are inconsistencies, they should be here:
https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
Can you find them and point them out?
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
Den 07.11.2023 04:32, skrev Richard Hertz:
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 6:59:06 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 06.11.2023 00:10, skrev Richard Hertz:
Right!
More ridiculous is the LACK OF explanation of symmetry in relativity, explained by pure breed relativists that maintain the Wiki page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
"Time dilation"
"Suppose there is a clock at rest in F. If a time interval is measured at the same point in that frame, so that Δx = 0, then the transformations
give this interval in F′ by Δt′ = γΔt.
Conversely, suppose there is a clock at rest in F′. If an interval is measured at the same point in that frame, so that Δx′ = 0, then the transformations
give this interval in F by Δt = γΔt′.
Either way, each observer measures the time interval between ticks of a moving clock to be longer by a factor γ than the time interval between ticks
of his own clock".
CONCLUSION: Both clocks show the same "time dilation", depending on which frame of reference at relative rest is taken for calculations.
This alone shows the incoherence of this pseudo-science, which has gained reputation as the stroke of a genius who destroyed Newton's physics.
Note: The question is NOT if SR is correct in the sense thatIf there are inconsistencies, they should be here:
https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
Can you find them and point them out?
its predictions are consistent with measurement/observations.
This can't be proved.
The question is if SR is consistent, that is free of self contradictions. That SR is consistent can be and is proved.
To prove that "The Shit" is inconsistent, you have to prove that
the Lorentz transformation (LT) is inconsistent.
Your admission of your failure to understand the mathematics of SR
Den 07.11.2023 04:32, skrev Richard Hertz:
Relativity IS A PSEUDO-SCIENCE and, as you embraced it decades ago, for you is
better to die than to reason and concede.
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 6:59:06 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 06.11.2023 00:10, skrev Richard Hertz:
Right!
More ridiculous is the LACK OF explanation of symmetry in relativity, explained by pure breed relativists that maintain the Wiki page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
"Time dilation"
"Suppose there is a clock at rest in F. If a time interval is measured at the same point in that frame, so that Δx = 0, then the transformations
give this interval in F′ by Δt′ = γΔt.
Conversely, suppose there is a clock at rest in F′. If an interval is measured at the same point in that frame, so that Δx′ = 0, then the transformations
give this interval in F by Δt = γΔt′.
Either way, each observer measures the time interval between ticks of a moving clock to be longer by a factor γ than the time interval between ticks
of his own clock".
CONCLUSION: Both clocks show the same "time dilation", depending on which frame of reference at relative rest is taken for calculations.
This alone shows the incoherence of this pseudo-science, which has gained reputation as the stroke of a genius who destroyed Newton's physics.
If there are inconsistencies, they should be here:
https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
Can you find them and point them out?
Frames origin separated by d = vt, after being synchronized when both origins are coincident (at t = 0).
Time elapsed AT ANY SELECTED relatively stationary reference frame: t = d/v.
PERCEPTION of the time elapsed at ANY SELECTED RELATIVELY MOVING reference frame: τ = γt.
Paul: "The symmetry is obvious".
Paul: "Which clock is running slow or fast relative to which?"
Paul: "The answer depends on how the clocks are compared!"
NO, Paul, it is not.
As a typical relativist, you need to make muddy waters of an explanation, so you can display your lies and fallacies.
The problem couldn't be MORE SIMPLE, but you need to make the explanation as twisted and retorted as possible. It's similar to
the attitude of an eccentric "smart ass" who wants to scratch his left ear with his right arm, but passing it around its neck, instead
of using the left arm OR the right arm crossing his chest.
You have been assimilated by the relativistic doctrine, which is: make things as complicated as possible, to set a defense ground
for any refutation. With this technique, you'll always have the means to explain a simple thing in complex ways, abusing of fallacies
and, of course, deceptive assertions.
Relativity IS A PSEUDO-SCIENCE and, as you embraced it decades ago, for you is better to die than to reason and concede.
The paradox is not that SR is a flawed metaphysical theory. The paradox, on you, is that being intelligent yet chose a stupid theory till the end,
and waste all your energy defending this crap.
It's exactly the behavior of A FANATIC in science, football, politics, history, etc.
Le 07/11/2023 à 15:33, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
Den 07.11.2023 04:32, skrev Richard Hertz:
No, the theory of relativity is not a pseudo science.Relativity IS A PSEUDO-SCIENCE and, as you embraced it decades ago, for you is
better to die than to reason and concede.
It is a superb theory whose origin begins with Joseph Larmor and Henri Poincaré at the end of the 19th century.
Lame justification of the paradox at this link, maintained by relativists: >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
There is no paradox.
*IF* there were a paradox, then each twin would disagree
as to how many years that the other twin has aged. In
reality, if the twins maintain communication throughout
the traveling twin's flight, then both twins will be in perfect
agreement about who aged by how much, regardless of
their different experiences. See my discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Twin_paradox
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 3:10:22 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
snip fresh imbecilities<
On November 6, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
Lame justification of the paradox at this link, maintained by relativists:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
There is no paradox.
*IF* there were a paradox, then each twin would disagreeSuppose, instead of accelerating from v = 0, the traveler is already
as to how many years that the other twin has aged. In
reality, if the twins maintain communication throughout
the traveling twin's flight, then both twins will be in perfect
agreement about who aged by how much, regardless of
their different experiences. See my discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Twin_paradox
moving at V, when he meets the home twin? Then at that instant,
they sync clocks at t =0
Regardless of any variations that you make in the traveling
twin's itinerary, at the end of the journey, when both twins
meet up again, both twins will be in perfect agreement
about who aged by how much, regardless of their different
experiences
*IF* there were a paradox, then each twin would disagree
as to how many years that the other twin has aged. In
reality, if the twins maintain communication throughout
the traveling twin's flight, then both twins will be in perfect
agreement about who aged by how much, regardless of
their different experiences. See my discussion here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Twin_paradox
Suppose, instead of accelerating from v = 0, the traveler is already
moving at V, when he meets the home twin? Then at that instant,
they sync clocks at t =0
Regardless of any variations that you make in the traveling
twin's itinerary, at the end of the journey, when both twins
meet up again, both twins will be in perfect agreement
about who aged by how much, regardless of their different
experiences. A glance at the Minkowski diagram should tell
you that, even before you go into any detailed calculations
such as I presented in the table.
On November 8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
Regardless of any variations that you make in the travelingMissing the point, as usual.
twin's itinerary, at the end of the journey, when both twins
meet up again, both twins will be in perfect agreement
about who aged by how much, regardless of their different
experiences. A glance at the Minkowski diagram should tell
you that, even before you go into any detailed calculations
such as I presented in the table.
The question isn't whether they agree at finish, it's a matter of distinguishing
two different scenarios. One, that you cover, posits the traveler starting from
rest, then accelerating. In the other, the traveler is moving at speed V before
they rendezvous.
There are a million articles on the twins paradox, and none of them ever address
this point in their flabby pseudo-analysis. So here's your chance to be one in a
million: recognize the distinction, and analyze both cases.
For bonus credit, place an observer Henry halfway along the route, and ask: what do the clocks show, when Traveler meets Henry? Note that, in the case where Traveler is already in motion, Henry and Earthbound Ed will demonstrate
the relative simultaneity concept; quite instructive.
More ridiculous is the LACK OF explanation of symmetry in relativity, explained by pure breed
relativists that maintain the Wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
"Time dilation"
"Suppose there is a clock at rest in F. If a time interval is measured at the same point in that frame,
then the transformations give this interval in F′ by Δt′ = γΔt. Conversely, suppose there is a clock at rest in F′. If an interval is measured at the same point
in that frame, then the transformations give this interval in F by Δt = γΔt′.
Either way, each observer measures the time interval between ticks of a moving clock to be longer
by a factor γ than the time interval between ticks of his own clock". CONCLUSION: Both clocks show the same "time dilation", depending on which frame of
reference at relative rest is taken for calculations.
This alone shows the incoherence of this pseudo-science
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
As seen, the definition of second loved so
much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
solar system is measuring the length
of solar day. What is the result predicted
by the Einsteinian physics?
One prediction is - 99766. From the
postulates. The second prediction is -
86400. From definition.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.
Thank you for your attention, poor
relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.
Le 09/03/2024 à 10:44, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
As seen, the definition of second loved so
much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
solar system is measuring the length
of solar day. What is the result predicted
by the Einsteinian physics?
One prediction is - 99766. From the
postulates. The second prediction is -
86400. From definition.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.
Thank you for your attention, poor
relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.
This deserves a prize for the most idiotic argument ever made here.
Le 09/03/2024 à 10:44, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
What is the result predicted
by the Einsteinian physics?
This deserves a prize for the most idiotic argument ever made here.
W dniu 09.03.2024 o 17:40, Python pisze:
Le 09/03/2024 à 10:44, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
As seen, the definition of second loved so
much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
solar system is measuring the length
of solar day. What is the result predicted
by the Einsteinian physics?
One prediction is - 99766. From the
postulates. The second prediction is -
86400. From definition.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.
Thank you for your attention, poor
relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.
This deserves a prize for the most idiotic argument ever made here.
Your rants won't change anything, the mumble
of your idiot guru was not even consistent,
what has been proven.
BTW, have you already learnt what a function is?
Or maybe "for any element of the domain" clause
is still confusing you,
poor stinker
Le 09/03/2024 à 18:36, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 09.03.2024 o 17:40, Python pisze:
Le 09/03/2024 à 10:44, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
As seen, the definition of second loved so
much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
solar system is measuring the length
of solar day. What is the result predicted
by the Einsteinian physics?
One prediction is - 99766. From the
postulates. The second prediction is -
86400. From definition.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.
Thank you for your attention, poor
relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.
This deserves a prize for the most idiotic argument ever made here.
Your rants won't change anything, the mumble
of your idiot guru was not even consistent,
what has been proven.
It is not a rant. Your argument is utterly stupid.
BTW, have you already learnt what a function is?
Or maybe "for any element of the domain" clause
is still confusing you,
You are dense, Maciej...
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_(math%C3%A9matiques)#Fonction_et_application
""" Dans les années 1950, l'école Bourbaki tente de définir précisément les deux notions. Ainsi peut-on lire dans un projet de rédaction du
Livre I, Chapitre II des Éléments de 19547, les définitions suivantes :
La relation R(x,y) est appelée une relation fonctionnelle de type
(T × U) si elle satisfait à la condition suivante : quel que soit x, il existe au plus un y tel R(x,y). À toute relation fonctionnelle, on
attache un objet nouveau que l'on appelle une fonction8 ;
On appelle champ de définition de la fonction f l'ensemble des éléments x de E pour lesquels il existe y tel que R(x,y). C'est une
partie E de E. On dit que f est définie sur E et dans E9 ;
Au lieu de parler d'une fonction définie sur E et prenant ses valeurs dans F, on parle d'une application de E dans F10.
Même si, dans la rédaction finale des Éléments de 197011, la fonction
est toujours définie sur son ensemble de départ, cette distinction est reprise dans l'enseignement français du secondaire, premier et second
cycle, quand, à la suite de la Commission Lichnerowicz, se mettent en
place les nouveaux programmes, à partir de 1968. Ainsi voit-on dès la
6e, illustrées par des diagrammes sagittaux, les définitions suivantes :
les relations telles que, de chaque élément de l'ensemble de départ, il part au plus une flèche, s'appellent des fonctions ;
les relations telles que, de chaque élément de l'ensemble de départ, il part exactement une flèche, s'appellent des applications.
En pratique, le fait qu'il suffise de réduire l'ensemble de départ d'une fonction à son ensemble de définition pour la transformer en application rend peu utile ce distinguo. """
W dniu 09.03.2024 o 19:19, Python pisze:
Le 09/03/2024 à 18:36, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 09.03.2024 o 17:40, Python pisze:
Le 09/03/2024 à 10:44, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
As seen, the definition of second loved so
much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
solar system is measuring the length
of solar day. What is the result predicted
by the Einsteinian physics?
One prediction is - 99766. From the
postulates. The second prediction is -
86400. From definition.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.
Thank you for your attention, poor
relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.
This deserves a prize for the most idiotic argument ever made here.
Your rants won't change anything, the mumble
of your idiot guru was not even consistent,
what has been proven.
It is not a rant. Your argument is utterly stupid.
Your rants won't change anything, the utterly
stupid mumble of your idiot guru was not even
consistent, what has been proven.
BTW, have you already learnt what a function is?
Or maybe "for any element of the domain" clause
is still confusing you,
You are dense, Maciej...
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_(math%C3%A9matiques)#Fonction_et_application
""" Dans les années 1950, l'école Bourbaki tente de définir
précisément les deux notions. Ainsi peut-on lire dans un projet de
rédaction du Livre I, Chapitre II des Éléments de 19547, les
définitions suivantes :
La relation R(x,y) est appelée une relation fonctionnelle de type >> (T × U) si elle satisfait à la condition suivante : quel que soit x,
il existe au plus un y tel R(x,y). À toute relation fonctionnelle, on
attache un objet nouveau que l'on appelle une fonction8 ;
On appelle champ de définition de la fonction f l'ensemble des
éléments x de E pour lesquels il existe y tel que R(x,y). C'est une
partie E de E. On dit que f est définie sur E et dans E9 ;
Au lieu de parler d'une fonction définie sur E et prenant ses
valeurs dans F, on parle d'une application de E dans F10.
Même si, dans la rédaction finale des Éléments de 197011, la fonction
est toujours définie sur son ensemble de départ, cette distinction est
reprise dans l'enseignement français du secondaire, premier et second
cycle, quand, à la suite de la Commission Lichnerowicz, se mettent en
place les nouveaux programmes, à partir de 1968. Ainsi voit-on dès la
6e, illustrées par des diagrammes sagittaux, les définitions suivantes : >>
les relations telles que, de chaque élément de l'ensemble de
départ, il part au plus une flèche, s'appellent des fonctions ;
les relations telles que, de chaque élément de l'ensemble de
départ, il part exactement une flèche, s'appellent des applications.
En pratique, le fait qu'il suffise de réduire l'ensemble de départ
d'une fonction à son ensemble de définition pour la transformer en
application rend peu utile ce distinguo. """
So? Is "for any element of the domain" clause in the
definition of function still confusing you or have you
learned something,
poor stinkerNice signature though.
Le 09/03/2024 à 20:50, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 09.03.2024 o 19:19, Python pisze:
Le 09/03/2024 à 18:36, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 09.03.2024 o 17:40, Python pisze:
Le 09/03/2024 à 10:44, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
As seen, the definition of second loved so
much to be invoked by relativistic morons -
wasn't valid in the time when their idiot guru
lived and mumbled. Up to 1960 it was ordinary
1/86400 of a solar day, also in physics.
Now: an observer moving with c/2 wrt
solar system is measuring the length
of solar day. What is the result predicted
by the Einsteinian physics?
One prediction is - 99766. From the
postulates. The second prediction is -
86400. From definition.
And similiarly with the prediction of
a measurement of a meridian.
Thank you for your attention, poor
relativistic fanatics, have a nice day.
This deserves a prize for the most idiotic argument ever made here.
Your rants won't change anything, the mumble
of your idiot guru was not even consistent,
what has been proven.
It is not a rant. Your argument is utterly stupid.
Your rants won't change anything, the utterly
stupid mumble of your idiot guru was not even
consistent, what has been proven.
You've proven nothing but your own confusion and dementia.
BTW, have you already learnt what a function is?
Or maybe "for any element of the domain" clause
is still confusing you,
You are dense, Maciej...
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_(math%C3%A9matiques)#Fonction_et_application
""" Dans les années 1950, l'école Bourbaki tente de définir
précisément les deux notions. Ainsi peut-on lire dans un projet de
rédaction du Livre I, Chapitre II des Éléments de 19547, les
définitions suivantes :
La relation R(x,y) est appelée une relation fonctionnelle de
type (T × U) si elle satisfait à la condition suivante : quel que
soit x, il existe au plus un y tel R(x,y). À toute relation
fonctionnelle, on attache un objet nouveau que l'on appelle une
fonction8 ;
On appelle champ de définition de la fonction f l'ensemble des >>> éléments x de E pour lesquels il existe y tel que R(x,y). C'est une
partie E de E. On dit que f est définie sur E et dans E9 ;
Au lieu de parler d'une fonction définie sur E et prenant ses
valeurs dans F, on parle d'une application de E dans F10.
Même si, dans la rédaction finale des Éléments de 197011, la fonction >>> est toujours définie sur son ensemble de départ, cette distinction
est reprise dans l'enseignement français du secondaire, premier et
second cycle, quand, à la suite de la Commission Lichnerowicz, se
mettent en place les nouveaux programmes, à partir de 1968. Ainsi
voit-on dès la 6e, illustrées par des diagrammes sagittaux, les
définitions suivantes :
les relations telles que, de chaque élément de l'ensemble de
départ, il part au plus une flèche, s'appellent des fonctions ;
les relations telles que, de chaque élément de l'ensemble de
départ, il part exactement une flèche, s'appellent des applications.
En pratique, le fait qu'il suffise de réduire l'ensemble de départ
d'une fonction à son ensemble de définition pour la transformer en
application rend peu utile ce distinguo. """
So? Is "for any element of the domain" clause in the
definition of function still confusing you or have you
learned something,
Did you notice the distinction between "ensemble de départ" and
"domaine" that has been (and still) is make in French math education?
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 313 |
Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
Uptime: | 03:13:17 |
Calls: | 6,998 |
Calls today: | 4 |
Files: | 12,425 |
Messages: | 5,454,405 |
Posted today: | 1 |